SHATTA MOVEMENT MUSIC VS TANG LONG COMPANY LTD. & ORS

By Court: The Court has heard arguments made by Counsel for the 1st Defendant/Applicant in an application to set aside a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim for want of capacity. The Court has also read the affidavit in support and taken a look at the exhibits attached. The gravamen of the application is found in paragraphs 4-8 of the affidavit in support. Application also supports the position in exhibits 1 and 2 that the Plaintiff, Shatta Movement Music Productions Limited is non-existent in the records of the Registrar General’s Department. What is on record is a sole proprietorship, Shatta Movement Music Production with the Business Names Act 1962 (No:151) and the date of registration is 10th September 2018.

Even though the Plaintiff has been served with notice of this application, it has failed to show up to either confirm the issues. It is trite that capacity goes to the root of jurisdiction of the court. Any time capacity is challenged, the court is under obligation to make a determination before doing anything else as lack of capacity negates everything. From the evidence before the Court, the Plaintiff as registered per exhibit ‘2’ is a sole proprietorship. Per exhibit ‘2’ also, no company has been registered at the Registrar General’s Department bearing the name Shatta Movement Music Productions Limited. That being the case, the Plaintiff Company does not exist as a legal entity in Ghana with the ability in Ghana to sue and be sued. Since the Court cannot put something on nothing, in the celebrated case of Mossi v Begyina, the writ is set aside for lack of jurisdiction as the court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain Applicants who have no capacity. Costs of GHC10,000.00 is awarded in favour of the 1st Defendant/Applicant against the Plaintiff/Respondent.

(sgd)

H/L JANE HARRIET AKWELEY QUAYE (MRS.)

R.A. (JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT)